To correct Lincoln somewhat, he should have said, \x34. . . that government of the people, by the politicians, and for the politicians shall not perish from the earth.

Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. — Ronald Reagan

In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own. -- Alexis de Toqueville

As one of about 155 million males in the United States, once I come of age and leave my parent’s home I’m free to live alone or with one or more others. I can marry or form a gay relationship. How I make my way in the world is up to me. Each of us has an equal opportunity to do any of those things. The approximately 160 million females have the same life choices. The government encourages marriage between a man and a woman because it establishes a family relationship that most favors the birth and nurturing of children. I see no point in government support for any other kind of relationship.My previous post was on same sex marriage, also known as “gay marriage” or “gay/lesbian marriage”. A reader commented that I am against equal rights for gays. Of course I am, in some degree. I tried to explain why in the prior post. I’m not against same sex couples pairing up, or having civil marriage ceremonies and proclaiming they are in love and are married. I think it’s good when two people love and care for each other. I am against any special benefits or licenses extended to them by the government, because most such benefits are available in civil law. Gay/lesbians complain that state marriage licenses confer those benefits automatically, and to exclude same sex couples is discrimination. I contend they could create a standard contract, conferring such benefits on each other, that would be acceptable to all gays. They are highly organized with numerous websites, and could do this easily, if they haven’t already.I didn’t mention the next-of-kin problem. Two unrelated people can live as a couple for many years, when one of them is hospitalized. The hospital may not recognize the other partner’s visitation rights unless they are married. I don’t know whether this is according to state and/or federal regulations or hospital practice. When treatment decisions are made, hospitals and doctors go to kin rather than the undocumented partner. However, this problem can be addressed in civil law, with a power of attorney agreement, for example. I believe the patient should be able to designate the people who may visit him or her, regardless of kinship.When Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein created his monster and brought him to life, he did so without thinking of consequences. He was meddling with nature. Much like Frankenstein, progressive politicians meddle with society, changing long-standing traditions and institutions without heed to the chaos they cause. An example is their attack on the family. They assert that marriage between a man and a woman is only one form of acceptable family unit. They pass legislation that pays some women to have many babies, from multiple fathers, without ever getting married. When they can, they teach children that homosexuality is normal. Progressive writers slip gay characters into movies, novels, and television programs in an attempt to make gays acceptable. Such tactics have succeeded. Gays are now almost completely accepted, as long as they don’t taunt others. But, I and perhaps a majority of others will never accept same sex marriage as normal or desirable.There are many religious people in this country, and the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman, or in the Old Testament, perhaps between a man and several women, as it does in some Islamic countries. I’m not religious, but I consider marriage sacred, something not to be touched. It’s there for a lot of good reasons. Our society is built on man to woman marriage and the family. Unfortunately, the marriage rate is declining. The birth rate is declining as well. In a few European countries, it’s now negative – the population is actually declining. Liberal politicians meddle. Vermont, for example, has a civil union -- a substitute for a marriage license. It confers all state benefits to same sex couples that are given with a marriage license. It’s a marriage license in almost all ways except the word ‘marriage’ isn’t used. The National Organization of Women has a fairly cogent critique of civil unions in Vermont and in general. NOW article on marriage and civil unions. There are some assertions in their article which are ridiculous. In filling out forms, you have to choose one of: “Married, single, divorced, or widowed?” There’s no place for “same sex union” or the equivalent. Big deal? Just answer single, unless you live in a state which allows gay marriage. Second class citizens? Gay/Lesbian people are equal to all other single people, where single is defined as either married under a government license or not so married.As I pointed out in my previous post, I believe the government should ignore gay unions. Same sex couples can obtain everything I’m aware of (except immunity from testifying against their partner) through existing civil law. Unfortunately, the proportion of people who support same sex marriage is growing. Someday, we may have a consensus of the general population that it should be the law. If and when that happens, man to woman marriages may become the exception. Society will be forever changed, and not necessarily for the better.